BOOK REVIEWS

Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society sound. My last comment regarding this introduction .S7(.3), 200.3, 251~252 relates to the quality of the language, which is poor, with several spelling mistakes, For example, the word PTEROPHOROIDEA & ALUClTOIDEA, by C, Gielis, World "catalogue" is misspelled twice in the first paragraph, Catalogue of 4: 1-198, H, van der Wolf Parts 3 and 4 of the book are the catalogues of (Editor), Apollo Books; Publication: 2003; hardback; Pterophoroidea and Alucitoidea, The Pterophoroidea ISBN 87-88757-68-4; Price excluding postage and 10% are divided here into and Macropirati­ discount if ordered directly from Apollo Books: DKK dae, the latter containing only the three of 320,00 (about 46 US$), See www.apollobooks.com Agdistopis, The Alucitoidea include the Alucitidae (186 species) and the Tineodidae (19 species), two This is the fourth volume of the World Catalogue of groups that are not divided into subfamilies, The Insects series and the first to treat , The Pterophoridae are divided into four subfamilies fol­ treatment covers all known taxa of Pterophoroidea lowing the author's revision of the group (Gielis 1993), (1139 species) and Alucitoidea (205 species), the plume The subfamilies, the tribes of Pterophorinac and all and the many-plumed moths respectively. genera are arranged phylogenetically, and the species The book is divided in 11 parts, The first one is a are all arranged in alphabetical order, short summary where unfortunately the name The presentation of each valid name in bold face Agdistopidae is introduced in error for Macropirati­ with proper indentations for the following list of syn­ dae, Six new synonyms are recorded in an inconsistent onyms as well as hostplant and distribution data makes manner as each pair of names should have been men­ for an easy consultation. The list of taxa appears com­ tioned in their original combination, which is the case plete, but it is unfortunately tinted by the presence of for two of the six pairs, In two cases where the new a few of the author's new names that are in press in combination of the oldest name is mentioned, the other publications, Their appearance herc will only parentheses are missing, And at least one new syn­ confuse recorders of nomenclature in the future, I onym, encountered on page 21, is not listed in the have checked for the accuracy of only a few entries summary, Also, the author writes that a new species is and I have found that some information is missing, mentioned whereas what is actually mentioned is a such as the new distribution and hostplant data [or the new name; consequently, the abbreviation nom, nov, species I treated in my second Galapagos Pterophori­ should have been used instead of spec. n, dae paper (Landry 1993), In addition, spelling mis­ The second part is a four-page introduction that takes are unfortunately rather frequent for country provides background information, an explanation on and hostplant names, and the names of the hostplant how the data are presented in the Catalogue, a useful descriptors are not conSistently mentioned, Also, if a list of the family-group names and genera with their line reaches the margin of the page and a word is cut, respective numbers of species, and the acknowledge­ the required hyphen is consistently missing, and I no­ ments, Here the reader will find that the author has ticed a problem in the use of the diacritic marks for elected to go against Article 31,2 of the International the name of L Capuse (see pp. 73, 74), One error in Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) and use the the list of AZucita names is that A montana is attrib­ original spelling of species names in lieu of making uted to Cockerell, while it was actually made valid by them agree in gender with their generic name. There Barnes and Lindsey has been and still is debate around that question and a Part 5 lists the only known fossil species for the two number of people don't like this Code's article, but un­ superfamilies while part 6 is the "ComprehenSive Ref­ til the Code is changed, I believe that it should he fol­ erence List," which indeed seems comprehensive, but lowed, Moreover, this decision is not conSistently ap­ here also the cut words at the end of sentences are not plied as exemplified by the combination Diacrotricha hyphenated. Parts 7 to 11 are the indexes to the Zanceata (Arenberger) and others, Part of the intro­ Dipterous parasites, the Hymenopterous parasites, the duction is dedicated to the delimitation of the seven hostplants by generic name, which reduces its useful­ biogeographical regions used throughout the Cata­ ness, the taxa of Alucitoidea, and the taxa of logue to record distribution data, One of these, the Pa­ Pterophoroidea inclusive of synonyms, I believe the cific region, is said to include New Zealand, Microne­ last two indexes should have been fused, to improve sia, the Hawaiian and Galapagos archipelagos, etc. As the use of the Alucitoidea index, which is presented far as is known the Lepidopteran fauna of the Galapa­ before that of the Pterophoroidea, gos is 100% N eotropical in origin, so the decision to This new resource on the World species of Aluci­ exclude them from this region is not SCientifically toidea and Pterophoroidea will be necessary to a wide 252 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY range of people interested in these taxa because it ap­ ommend that the future installments of the series be pears to fulfill the three most important criteria for reviewed and edited more carefully. On a final positive usefulness of this type of publication: I- the systemat­ note, the quality of the binding and paper are excellent. ics is up-to-date; 2-the available scientific names are I thank Ivan Lobi and Jeff Wells for their comments on the man­ all recorded; and 3-the orthography of these names is uscript. correct except for the agreement in gender of the species names. Moreover, the citations of original pub­ LITERATURE CITED lication information of the moths' names also appears GlELlS, C. 1993. Generic revision of the superfamily Pterophnroidea recorded free of errors and the list of references is (Lepidoptera). Zoologische Verhandelingen, Leiden 290:1- 139. comprehensive. However, there is some missing infor­ LANDRY, B. 1993. Additions to the knowledge of the Pterophoridae (Lepidoptera) of the Galapagos archipelago, Ecuador, with de­ mation in the hostplant and distribution data, and poor scriptions of two new species. Zoologische Mededelingen, Lei­ editing of these data and other parts, which is very un­ den 67:473-485. fortunate given the costs and efforts involved, as this may cause one to become suspicious of the quality of BERNARD LANDRY, Museum d'histoire naturelle, the rest of the information presented. I can only rec- c.p 6434, CH-1211 Geneva 6, Switzerland

Date of Issue (Vol. 57, No. :3 ): 29 September 200:3